I think ecumenism is better than the triumphalism and over-harshness of former ages. We have learned a few things through the centuries, don't you think?

I don't understand why a supposedly theocratic organisation would need to 'learn' such things. That seems a sign of a man-made organisation.

How, then, could the God-Man also learn?:

"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." (Lk 2:52; RSV).

"And the child grew and became strong in spirit . . . " (Lk 1:80)

"And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom . . ." (Lk 2:40)

"Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him." (Heb 5:8-9)

Generally speaking, you indirectly refer to (and apparently question) the notion of development of doctrine (see my treatise on development). Development of doctrine (especially Cardinal Newman's classic exposition of it) is basically what made me a Catholic - see the in-depth version of that story), along with the Church's sublime moral teaching, and my historical study of Martin Luther and the Protestant Revolt. These three intertwined strands of truth proved to be a "cord" so strong I couldn't break it, and thus I felt compelled and duty-bound to submit to the Catholic Church, way back in 1990.

As a side note, I would argue that Eastern Orthodoxy falls short both in terms of understanding (let alone consistently applying) development of doctrine and in moral theology (contraception and divorce). Those are some of the reasons I converted to Catholicism rather than Orthodoxy. And all of my many formerly evangelical friends who have converted in the last eight years became Catholics as well, with the exception of two - several of them having done a great deal of research into the relative merits of both communions.

Jeff Mirus wrote several things which call for further discussion. He wrote:

But ultimately, this is an argument about authority... Authority in the Church is living authority, by real people (the popes) who can settle real questions in real time. As Newman pointed out, it is inconceivable that there could be so great a difference in dispensation between the first Christians and ourselves that they should have a living infallible authority (Christ) and we should not... In fact, elevating Tradition over the living authority of the Holy See is even worse than elevating Scripture over that authority. Appeals to Scripture, tradition, emotional attachment or personal preference must ultimately bow to that living authority or cease to be Catholic.

He was. Who else would he be speaking for?!

First I believe he did not use an appropriate reference to the writings of John Henry Cardinal Newman. Newman believed in a Sensus Fidelium which consisted of faith given by our Lord to the Apostles, recorded as the Word of God in the inerrant Holy Scripture, expressed in the consensus of the Church Fathers, and in the experience of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the faithful.

Sure (and I have a link to his work On Consulting the Faithful on my Newman page), except that you amazingly neglect to mention the Church and the pope in this list!!!! If Newman wished to avoid those things, he certainly could have remained Anglican, no? He was (after 1845) an orthodox Catholic, and fully accepted the definition of papal infallibility in 1870 (though he was an inopportunist beforehand - like I am with regard to Mary the Mediatrix now; such a position does not necessarily imply disbelief or contrary belief). ---see my paper, Newman on Papal Infallibility.

Cardinal Newman vigorously critiqued his former affiliation in works such as Difficulties of Anglicans. In fact, the whole point of his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (by means of which he essentially "argued himself" into the Catholic Church) was that Anglicanism - time and again - is not analogous to the Catholic Church in the early centuries; that only the (Roman) Catholic Church fit that bill (and was in fact identical in essence to the early Church and a continuation of it). He made the analogy of Anglicanism with the semi-Arians and Monophysites in certain respects.

The Bishops, including the Pope, may expound "the faith once delivered to the Saints", they may explain it, and show how it applies to the righteous lives of the faithful. The Bishops may NOT contradict, expunge, or alter the Gospel given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Of course that is our teaching as well. But you neglect to explain how the Church authoritatively determines what that gospel is in all its particulars. The Church didn't even definitively know what books were in the Bible until the late 4th century. "Truth" and "certainty" in theological and spiritual matters are only as good as the next contradictory belief. We believe that the primacy of Peter, which developed into the papacy as we know, is an inherent part of the apostolic deposit, the "faith delivered to the saints" for which we vigorously contend (Jude 3).

Anglicans (and Orthodox and other Protestants) deny that, so right off the bat, we have a divergence as to what constitutes the gospel in its fullness (or perhaps I should say "what constitutes the Church and its government") - my point being that some manifestation of ongoing binding authority is inevitably necessary. In Catholic thought, the true Tradition, the Bible, and the authority of the Church are all of a piece, and cannot and will not contradict. To us it is like (as C.S. Lewis said) asking which blade in a pair of scissors is more necessary.

I am sure that we are all in agreement that the authority of the Bishops is limited by the Gospel itself.

Yep.

God cannot contradict Himself.

Nope. :-)

The Church cannot change the Word of God.

I don't know of any Christian group which would claim that, although Protestantism did throw out seven books of the Bible, and we have seen Luther's opinion of various biblical books.

The Word of God says that God is the Creator. No Bishop can say that God is NOT the Creator. (However we do have an Anglican Bishop who so stated).

This is the whole point! You guys have clergy who have stated that. Our magisterium has never, and will never assert such a ridiculous thing. So (with all due respect) it seems that - if anything - your arguments have more force against your own communion. Is this Bishop still a Bishop?

Mr. Mirus says that we cannot elevate Holy Scripture or Tradition over the Pope.

That's right, in the sense that they can never contradict, and that private judgment can never confute papal authority, which is divinely-protected by the charism of infallibility. This authority in turn can never contradict Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Rather, it is the guardian of those things.

I believe that the question of authority in the Church is not a question of whom or what is above the other. What the Church teaches through the Bishops and the Pope is in agreement with the Holy Scripture and it is in agreement with the consensus of the Church Fathers.

I agree. But take, e.g., the issue of contraception. Orthodox and Anglicans are certainly not in agreement with patristic consensus on that issue (nor with patristic views on the papacy, for that matter). You even asserted proudly that Anglicanism had the courage to change with the times in 1930. But this particular change is no development at all, but a corruption and reversal of unanimous Christian Tradition up to this century.

I believe I have just shown in a recent post how Orthodox teaching on divorce is out of touch with the Fathers (and I would suspect Anglicanism is as well - I'm not sure what their official teaching on divorce is these days). The Catholic Church alone, in my opinion, maintains a consistent view of the Fathers' teaching, and the Bible. The early Church had ecumenical councils; we continue to have ecumenical councils. The early Church developed its doctrine; so do we. The early Church was hierarchical with a pope as its head; only we continue that form of ecclesiology. The early Church believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and in a less-developed form of transubstantiation; guess who believes those things? On and on it goes . . .

The Bishops and the Pope can guide the Church, they can lead it, they can give it expression regarding the vicissitudes of life in every generation. What they cannot do to the Gospel as revealed in Holy Scripture and the Consensus of the Fathers is to change it, expunge it, or alter it.

Exactly. No argument on that. Our disagreement is: who is doing that? Certainly not us. Mirus' argument is entirely consistent; I see nothing wrong with it. But in the final analysis I do see, on the other hand, radical inconsistencies in the Anglican, Orthodox, and Protestant views when it comes to a continuous, self-consistent and coherent Church history.

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

I think you are strengthening my case! :-)

No one ever accused me of mincing words . . . <GGGGGGG> But one must state truth as they see it. I don't mean to personally offend anyone . . .

When did Newman's theory of development, virulently rejected by most Catholics of his time, gain widespread acceptance?

If it was rejected, then that was certainly because it was misunderstood, as the history of this idea goes back explicitly at least to the 5th century, and St. Vincent of Lerins. There is nothing whatever in his thesis contrary to the historic and traditional Catholic faith (obscurantist "traditionalist" and anti-Catholic critiques notwithstanding). Newman was often misunderstood, because of his sheer brilliance of intellect and vision. This is also nothing new. We would expect that: the greatest geniuses are always "ahead of their time." But in this instance, he was merely expounding in a strikingly original and eloquent way what had already been taught in the patristic period.

I'm not sure when exactly the "bum rap" against Newman subsided - probably after he became a Cardinal in 1879. Theological liberals have been claiming him as their own for many years, and perhaps this accounts for at least some of the confusion as to the "orthodoxy" of development. But the liberal arguments are silly, illogical, and insubstantial. They simply assume that anyone with a brain would have to be a liberal, without troubling themselves to understand the man's work and thought. I've seen this time and again.

In any event, I think by Vatican II, if not long before, Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman was completely vindicated in all quarters of the Church. He foresaw the thinking of Vatican II as no other 19th century (or even early 20th century) figure did.